hwp_preview_profile_insert

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that values never leave the local server, that the preview does not return the inserted values, and that a plan is returned for later approval, which implies no mutation is applied by this tool. It could still be more explicit about side effects or failure modes, but this is meaningful behavioral context beyond the name and schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, each carrying necessary information: the action, the critical privacy/return behavior, and the required workflow. No filler or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The workflow ordering and behavior are well covered, and an output schema exists for return values. However, key parameters such as expected_revision, style, and new_paragraph_after are unspecified, so an agent still lacks enough parameter-level information to invoke the tool confidently in varied cases.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It alludes to choosing a 'local profile value' (likely profile_id and key) and the caret location, but it does not explain expected_revision, style, or new_paragraph_after, leaving the agent to guess their semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The opening sentence names a specific verb ('Preview inserting'), a resource ('one local profile value'), and a location ('current HWP Live caret'). It clearly identifies the tool's action but does not explicitly contrast with the hwp_foreground_preview_profile_insert sibling, so the distinction is carried by the name and 'local server' rather than stated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives an explicit sequence: first call hwp_read_context, place or confirm the caret, then get approval before applying the returned plan. This tells an agent exactly when and in what order to use it, though it does not mention alternatives or exclusions such as when to choose the foreground counterpart.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.